James2 wrote:The possibility of the mafia or NK being caught and exposed by another faction is not an "unfair element".

For Witch it is in many cases. NK or Mafia using Witch will very often aid them in their win chances; the game mechanically encourages NK and Mafia to use Witch by way of her win condition. To then have something which could potentially and often unpredictably destroy the idea of NK/Mafia using Witch to their advantage, often putting them at a heavier disadvantage if they otherwise did not work with the Witch, is contradicting the mechanical encouragement NK and Mafia are given to side with Witch. It might be fine in cases where NK/Mafia can easily predict that they might out them once killed, i.e if Witch is angry with them for whatever reason, but most often it is largely or completely unpredictable as to whether Witch will out them or not once killed. Given the Witch will not out Mafia/NK the majority of the time, it is unfair to expect Mafia/NK to not try and side with Witch given the opportunity in cases where the Witch outing them is largely or completely unpredictable.

Well, not necessarily the part about Witch wills. More importantly the game could use a notepad feature that's shown to no one so she can write down Mafia names without exposing them needlessly.

But the Witch does have no reason whatsoever to be talking after dying. Like other NEs (excepting a lynched Jester), they might as well leave as soon as they're in the grave instead of staying and potentially giving info to Meds out of spite.

James2 wrote:The possibility of the mafia or NK being caught and exposed by another faction is not an "unfair element".

For Witch it is in many cases.

No. Having to engage in diplomacy with neutrals is not an "unfair element". Neutrals siding against you is not an "unfair element". This is no different from any other salty kingmaker scenario.

Implying that kingmaking scenarios are not very often unfair?

James2 wrote:Also, giving away your mafia teammates to someone outside the mafia is a stupid. Losing because of your own or a teammates stupidity is not an "unfair element".

Implying that bussing is sometimes not a viable tactic? Implying that a player losing because of a teammates sometimes uncontrollable stupidity is not unfair?

The game of Mafia has numerous unfair elements, whether they are avoidable or unavoidable. The Witch's ability to kingmake in a scenario where she must directly decide between NK and Mafia is unavoidable unfair element (unless you were to fundamentally change her win condition), because by definition the Witch's win condition allows her to win with either Mafia or NK. The Witch's ability to significantly reduce the win chances of a faction when it is largely outside of said faction's control by outing the Mafia/NK via last will or communication to the Town from the dead is an avoidable unfair element, which was shown through my previously stated fixes.

You can't just dismiss an avoidable unfair element just because the game of Mafia is full of numerous unavoidable unfair elements; unfairness should be reduced where possible.

Not my point; my point is that losing due to elements largely or entirely outside of the player's control is unfair in the context of Town of Salem.

I would say there is a strong incentive to believe that Town of Salem should be more inclined to give players who are more skilled the better chance of winning, since the game itself asserts that skills such as social skills play a significant role.

Now suppose that another game asserts that social skills play a significant role. The game turns out to be a game of 50/50, decided entirely by luck; suppose you lose the game. Given the game asserts that social skills should play a significant role, do you think your loss would be fair here? Do you think it would be unfair? I would always say the latter. Why? Because the game asserts that elements which allow the player control over their win chances should be present to a significant degree, and yet they are not; you lose here entirely outside of your own control. The game lulls you into believing that you are at least somewhat in control, and yet you are not; it is completely contradictory to what the game sets out to be.

Similarly, this idea can be applied to situational instances in Town of Salem, including kingmaking scenarios where one particular faction is given a win over another, often for no good reason other than "because".

James2 wrote:In case the point is still lost on you, diplomacy is one of the social skills required for Town of Salem. Those who have it will, in the aggregate, win more kingmaker scenarios than those who don't.

Still doesn't change the fact that the result of many kingmaking scenarios are not decided by anything remotely telling of one's skill. It is true that the result of some kingmaking scenarios might be induced by factors regarding player skill, perhaps leading to a better skilled player winning in more kingmaking scenarios in the long run, but long term effects do not offset the feeling of unfairness in the short term. I would also argue that, in the long run, a person more skilled in winning king making scenarios would not particularly benefit that much over those who are not, largely due to the sheer amount of uncontrollability involved in kingmaker situations.

The only witch change I would support is changing them so they win if they're alive when the last town dies, since at that point, they've literally fulfilled their win condition of "Live to see the town lose."

Mikemk wrote:The only witch change I would support is changing them so they win if they're alive when the last town dies, since at that point, they've literally fulfilled their win condition of "Live to see the town lose."

Or if more evil alive than town casue 3 maf 1 town, can still lynch witch for the "funsies." I've seen it happen. It's BS.

Anyar wrote: they might as well leave as soon as they're in the grave instead of staying and potentially giving info to Meds out of spite.

And lose -15 elo for doing so.

You lose more Elo for quitting when dead even if your win chance is 0%?

If so that's stupid.

Your win chance is never 0.

Atalanta8 wrote:

Mikemk wrote:The only witch change I would support is changing them so they win if they're alive when the last town dies, since at that point, they've literally fulfilled their win condition of "Live to see the town lose."

Or if more evil alive than town casue 3 maf 1 town, can still lynch witch for the "funsies." I've seen it happen. It's BS.

Seen it too. Just report them, at that point it's gamethrowing because they know you're on the same team.

Mikemk wrote:The only witch change I would support is changing them so they win if they're alive when the last town dies, since at that point, they've literally fulfilled their win condition of "Live to see the town lose."

Or if more evil alive than town casue 3 maf 1 town, can still lynch witch for the "funsies." I've seen it happen. It's BS.

Being salty about losing is not a valid reason for changing game mechanics.

Flake wrote:long term effects do not offset the feeling of unfairness in the short term

See above.

Mikemk wrote:

Atalanta8 wrote:3 maf 1 town, can still lynch witch for the "funsies." I've seen it happen. It's BS.

Seen it too. Just report them, at that point it's gamethrowing because they know you're on the same team.

Being salty about losing is, in addition to not being a valid reason for changing game mechanics, also not a valid reason for reporting the winning team.

Last edited by James2 on Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mikemk wrote:The only witch change I would support is changing them so they win if they're alive when the last town dies, since at that point, they've literally fulfilled their win condition of "Live to see the town lose."

This may be the first valid suggestion in the thread. I disagree though. The witch is effectively an evil survivor, so she should be required to actually live to the end of the game. I would agree with giving the witch a win in the event that she lives to see a draw between evil factions.

Mikemk wrote:The only witch change I would support is changing them so they win if they're alive when the last town dies, since at that point, they've literally fulfilled their win condition of "Live to see the town lose."

Or if more evil alive than town casue 3 maf 1 town, can still lynch witch for the "funsies." I've seen it happen. It's BS.

Seen it too. Just report them, at that point it's gamethrowing because they know you're on the same team.

However, it's not considered GTing per rules and therefore reporting is useless.

Mikemk wrote:The only witch change I would support is changing them so they win if they're alive when the last town dies, since at that point, they've literally fulfilled their win condition of "Live to see the town lose."

Or if more evil alive than town casue 3 maf 1 town, can still lynch witch for the "funsies." I've seen it happen. It's BS.

Being salty about losing is not a valid reason for changing game mechanics.

It's not being salty that you lost. It's being salty becasue in all sense and purposes you win but then some assholes decide that it'd be fun if you don't get to win after all because it doesn't effect their win. 100% this is a valid reason to change game mechanics. Lynching witch as "funsies" should at the very least be a report-able offense which results in a ban.